Blog-Explosion Turns Leftist Activist?

July 10, 2006

-By Warner Todd Huston

Blog-Explosion is one of those web-sites that tries to help its members enlarge the traffic that patronizes their blog. Upon joining the service, they try to steer visitors to your site and they add your site to their directory of sites organized by subject, etc.

As a long time member of the service, I recently received an interesting e-mail plea from Blog-Explosion asking that member bloggers blog about a new idea called “your” to gain credits in the Blog-Explosion system.

Apparently, the idea is that you (Joe-citizen of the world) should send your questions about what you want to see changed or addressed in the world today to the site, and then, in Sept. in Germany, this group will meet and talk about your questions.

They will have a big forum where all these “artists, scientists. And people of the world” will sit about and discuss the state of the world and what to do about it all. YOUR questions will drive the agenda and set the tone.

Yeah. Riiiight.

The site that it takes you to makes one suspicious right away. The first screen says:

Dropping knowledge is a global initiative to turn apathy into activity. By hosting an open conversation on the most pressing issues of our times, we will foster a worldwide exchange of viewpoints, ideas and people-powered solutions. However knowledge is defined, by dropping it freely to others, we all gain wisdom.

This is just the first of the many “explanations” that end up sounding suspiciously like “feels-good” seminar-speak. As you click through the pages you see more and more of it. They are going to “turn apathy into activity”, they are going to “challenge people”, they want to “inspire conversation”…. etc., etc.

But no where can you find out what it is they want to change. It’s all nebulous and undefined.

Of course, if you watch the little webmovie there you will see the woman they have as the star of their clip saying that religion is all that is wrong in the world.

“Religion causes inflexibility, wars, hatred, persecution, a world full of divisions.I want to ask if one can leave religion behind …”

Well it simple-mindedly goes on and on from there.

But, aside from the webmovie, there is no real explanation of what they want to do. Why is that one might wonder? Because, more than likely, these “scientists, artists, and people from all over the world” are coming to Germany in September with an agenda preformed.

They have no interest in “your questions”.

Why do I say that?

On one page you can find out that the U.S. sponsor of this thing is the Tides Center. And on their web page you can get a nice list of their board of directors. And this list really tells you what their agenda is.

NGO Leftist agitation!

Tides Center Board of Directors(A selection)

Noa Emmett Aluli, Director
Noa Emmett Aluli is a Native Hawaiian physician on Moloka’i and a long time activist for the preservation of Hawaiian culture and beliefs

Dan Carol, Director
Dan has served as a budget analyst at the Congressional Budget Office, former Research Director for the Democratic National Committee

Stephanie J. Clohesy, Secretary
Stephanie J. Clohesy is a public service leader with experience in public policy, women’s rights, citizen participation/democratization.

Martha Jiménez, Director
Martha Jiménez is the Assistant Director for Equal Opportunity for the Rockefeller Foundation West Coast Office in San Francisco, California. Martha is a graduate of California’s Bolt School of Law where she served as co-editor-in-chief of La Raza Law Journal.

Wade Rathke, Chair
Wade Rathke is the President of the New Orleans-based Local 100 of the Service Employees Union of America, AFL-CIO.

Maya Wiley, Director
Maya Wiley is the founder and Director of the Center for Social Inclusion (CSI), an applied research and advocacy organization which supports community groups to dismantle structural racism. A civil rights attorney and social justice advocate, she worked for the ACLU National Legal Department, litigating education and race discrimination cases and the NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. on access to health care. She has assisted several not-for-profits on program and strategy development in the United States, including the Applied Research Center and the Poverty and Race Resource Action Council.

Really, what more need be said? Many anti-American, leftist groups are represented in the history of the board of directors so it is pretty obvious what their agenda leans toward.

So, what is it they plan to change? They don’t say, but OBVIOUSLY they plan to eliminate America and replace it with their “better way”, what ever that may be.

But, what do they REALLY want? When all is said and done?


Their site is really just a portal to raise cash to support their pre-formed agenda of destroying America, eliminating religion, and pushing their leftist agenda.

So, Blog-Explosion has gone from a blog community to a leftist agitator.

Should we be surprised?

Still, I say let’s not just boycott Blog-Explosion. Let’s participate in this “question” exchange. Let’s email them why they like to kill babies with unlimited abortion? Let’s ask them why they want to destroy capitalism, the thing that has brought improvement to the world? Let’s ask them why they want America laid low? Let’s ask them why they want to indiscriminately eliminate religion? How about why they want to topple legitimate governments and replace it with some kind of one world government?

How much you want to bet not one of OUR questions end up being considered in Germany in September!


The First Hike of the Summer

June 22, 2006

It has been a while. Quite awhile, actually, well–since last fall, but before that, it had been awhile. In case you haven’t guessed, hiking. Last fall, my friend Brian and I set out to reach the summit of Greyrock, not sure of the height, but it sits 20 minutes outside Fort Collins, Colorado in Poudre (Poo der) Valley.

This trip we had planned for more than a week, he had to get permission from the wife. Hmph! Unfortunately, when we set out it was late in the day and we did not get a chance to finish it. Simply, it was late fall and we had failed to anticipate the 6.5 mile round trek to and from the summit might suffer the fate of darkness.

Forward June 18th 2006, my friend Brian and I returned to conquer Greyrock, this time we went earlier, and this time we conquered. Yes! We were men! Arrrrgh! On our way and our way down we solved the problems of the planet, including that peace thing that seems to pop up every generation. Heck, we even solved the Middle East quandary.
And, no it was not nuke the place until it glowed. No, we felt that there would be eventual peace, if only we could catch Saddam Hussein. Oh yeah, we did that. There would be eventual peace, if only the Iraqi people would elect a government. Oh yeah, they did that. Yes, we thought that there would be eventual peace, if we dropped a 500 pound on where Al Zagawi lived with his fellow conspirators. Oh yeah, we did that too. Hmmm? Well did solve it though. We figured we let the "the undocumented workers," Mexican Nationals, overrun their borders for awhile–certainly that might bring about peace (tongue inserted firmly in cheek here).

However, the political discourse and rancor that resides within the country was a bit more difficult to resolve. We figured that "civil" discourse was no longer viable, in that, it has been transformed, obscured, and blunted into submission. As we hiked, we debated on the civility of Americans on days gone by; we were convinced that every generation felt that morals of the following generation were in decline. We met several people along the trail, some with their dogs, and some with their kids. They all outpaced us both up and down the mountain. But we traveled at a leisured pace soaking in the ambience of nature.
The trail ahead may have had looked ominous, but not all things appear what they seem. This is a message that has been a theme in my life. I have regretted much, and not always empathized enough. Some of my life's indiscretions and indecisions had brought me much joy or happiness, but they had brought perspectives unexpected. The question had always been what is next?

Forward motion. Each step is placed in front of the other. For me waging that eternal of Eros and Thanatos: the battle of living life and letting life decay by erosion to inevitable death. Yes, my friend and I pondered the mysteries of life.
But the everyday doldrums, the living of life taking the shorter route, the steeper path, the dips and ascension powers our certainty forward. I listened to my friend's angst, resentments, both professional and personal, and I listened to mine. Our frustrations can be painted in pastels, so they can brightened, and fruitful. Yes, the may seem to multiply, but it is the journey, in which, the travails and experience shone us a new perception. Yes, each ripples of wave, each step, each moment become more precious than the last. Nature renews. Nature provides the vehicle of transformation and connection. The mountain air soothes the spirit and energizes the heart. Nature brings love and incarnation. Nature brings life….

The Terrorists at Home

June 13, 2006





Well, that tears it! We have officially lost the “War on Terror”! Mark this day down, the so called argument “Fighting them over there, in order to protect us here” is done. And, you can thank the major four drug (link) companies for not only identifying the terrorist among us, but also finding a cure for them and terrorism a well. Hey, take these two pills and call your psychiatrist in the morning.

And, who said big pharmaceuticals companies don’t have compassion for their fellow man. The proof is in the pudding—yes? Essentially, a study clarifies by way of surveying over 9000 US adults on road rage, and as a result a new mental disorder: Intermittent Explosive Disorder and may effect as much as 7.3 percent of American adults (see June 8th Mayo Clinic online).

Hmm? We have IED’s in America! That tears it! It is time to kick all the bums out of office in charge of Homeland Security. To let such roadside terror to infiltrate the country, to terrorize Americans and to find “we fought the enemy and they are us!”

While the troops in Iraq blaze by the IED’s (Improvise Explosive Devices) on the highways of Baghdad, which are mechanical in nature, the citizenry of American highways are in danger by our IED’s; a seeing red, enraged, (mostly) male adult “blowing up” at us in our cars.


Huh, that certainly explains Jake Plumber, who recently had his IED moment here in Denver.

I can see defense attorneys throughout America already lining up to co-opt this latest mental disorder to protect their wayward “clients.”—hmph!

Whatever, happened to personal responsibility; and, being accountable for your own actions? Oh, yeah we gave up it to socialists, Godless nannyists, communists on the Left and the God fearing, authoritarian fascists, Neocons on the Right. Oh well, it is just another day in paradise and we now have our own IED’s to make it complete.

Quick Post #1

June 9, 2006

Dateline: June 07, 2006 Wednesday

Today, as I watched the evening national news (World News Tonight), an outspoken and most benevolent Anne Coulter was quoted as spewing her usual treatment of liberals. In this case, she pounded, nailed, stomped, berated, incited, demonized, and victimized four women whose husbands were killed in the 9/11 World Trade Center Towers. The following quote is out of context, but illustrates her perspectives and attitude of how she feels about her polar opposites politically, quoted as followed from the NBC, Today Show:

Lauer to Ann Coulter: "Alright on the 9/11 widows and in particular a group that had been outspoken and critical of the administration.’ These self-obsessed women seem genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attack only happened to them. They believe the entire country was required to marinate in their exquisite personal agony. Apparently denouncing Bush was an important part of their closure process.' And this part is, is the part I really need to talk to you about. 'These broads are millionaires lionized on TV and in articles about them reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis. I've never seen people enjoying their husbands' death so much.'"

-Admittedly, her remarks are to be considered rude, sweeping, and are a hasty generalization of these women.

-Admittedly, this is only a small snippet of her book, and a viewpoint to create sales for it.

-Admittedly, this book will create an "active discussion" the role of the victim, nonetheless, the tone of her statements in the book makes one wonder about her true motivation.

-Admittedly, what is fascinating, is that, the gullibility of MSM (Main Stream Media) in the reporting of her "controversial statements" throughout her book has the extremes frothing at the mouth.

-Admittedly, this is truer of the Far Left than the Far Right.

-Admittedly, this outspokenness is her shtick (and to some degree tiresome) to generate publicity for her books.

-Admittedly, what is unfortunate that her tone and vitriol is necessary to be heard above the fray of the public minutia.

-Admittedly, such attitudes can lead to intolerance and can eventuate into fascism for the Right, and eventuation of socialism for the Left.

-Admittedly, with a Democratic Republic this will lead to a hybrid of "fascioism" (my term) where the "nannyist" on the Left and the "authoritarians" on the Right both meet at the edges and willing to restrain the liberties of the citizenry.

-Admittedly, this leads to the cognitive dissonance to schizophrenia of logic and the irrational emotion of the public forum.

irrational emotion of the public forum.

-Admittedly, the social ills that Ann Coulter point towards with "doctrine of infallibility" of victims has been pierced but not destroyed.

-Admittedly, this may embolden victimization and set a new level for pity and "infallibility."

-Admittedly, Ann's remarks will do more harm than good in the public debate, in that, her ultimate goal may have been to undermine the "illusory" role if the "infallible" victim so that their "magical defense" can be pierced, but her divisiveness precedes her and lessens her credulity.

-Admittedly, this is because of the own groups that she represents has been guilty of the same tactic, the use of the "doctrine of infallibility" to their own political agenda.

-Admittedly, this is hypocritical, and marginalizes her, which eventuates in her own victimization aiding her to sell more books.

-Admittedly, that is and was her and her publishers point. After all, it is just another day in paradise….


Gay Marriage – A Human Perspective

June 8, 2006

Editor's Note: As some of you may or may not know I am taking my core requirements for my Anthropology degree at a local community college. By doing this is I have reduced my expense in the cost of paying for my degree. However, in order to transfer to a full accredited university, I must meet a certain criteria.

One of those criteria is the requirement of college research English. Why do bring this nostalgic moment up? Once again, the recycled debate of gay marriage has hit the political landscape. Three years ago, when the political savvy elite found fodder in rehashing this a "cultural war" gem as a way to engergize the religious right base, I wrote research for this class. So, I dusted it off and I submit it to you for your appraisal or discussion. One further point, I would like to acknowledge my instructor for all his patience and guidance – Bob O'Connell.

Dateline: June O5, 2006

Warner T. Huston, of the Publius’ Forum, advocates the amending the US Constitution to restrict a personal liberty in order to curtail the “judicial activism.” There is something funny about “judicial activism,” there are only “activist judges” when “they,” the judges, disagrees, most often, with a particular social, cultural, or policy in the opinion of the dissenter, whether they are Left, or Right.

For instance, conservatives (and some right thinking Lefties) railed when the US Supreme Court ruled that in Connecticut that it was okay in the view of public policy to condemn a private citizen’s property in lieu of a corporate entity. On the other hand, the liberals were dismayed when again, the US Supreme Court, ruled that the Ku Klux Klan have a right to free speech even in the form of what could be considered “hate speech.”

The opinion of the judiciary is sometime behind the curve (think Jim Crow laws) and sometimes ahead (think Roe v Wade); nonetheless, “judicial activism” is in the eye of the beholder. Which brings me to another point of consideration of Warner’s discourse, that the restriction of personal liberty, and I must add, “Of consenting adults” as necessity to combat the social mores of a US citizen. To restrict freedom only invites a festering dissension and resentment. At present, although not sanctioned by law, same-sex marriage is not banned. This should remain a state issue, to cede authority to federal government gives more power to the Executive, US Congress, and the US Senate and will be far more difficult to wrest away from the “representative” government when needed.

Furthermore, to have a constitution convention to modify in the current state of patriotic religious fervor would be far more dangerous than the actual amendment. It is fortunate that the Founding Fathers made the modification of the “great experiment” so difficult. The rules state as follows, per the interpretation of the US Senate website.

The Constitution may be amended in two ways. The standard device, used for all amendments so far, is for both houses of Congress to pass by two-thirds vote a proposal, which they send to the states for ratification, either by state legislatures or by conventions within the states. An amendment is ratified when three-fourths of the states approve. The Constitution also authorizes a national convention, when two-thirds of the states petition Congress for such a convention, to propose amendments, which would also have to be ratified by three-quarters of the states.

In these rules we find rationality and temperament, in that, the nation should never rage to the popular movement in order to constraint or advocate without active discourse. In the case of the marriage amendment, cynical political rhetoric was clearly being used to influence, to cajole the far right Christian base of the president in order to energize his base. Overall public clarity saw through this, not because of any public prescience, but the State of the Union is in disarray due in part of missteps of the Executive administration. There may be “a constant statistic” of 70 percent in favor “traditional marriage,” but less than half of those “traditionalist” want an amendment to make it so, and that to has been a “constant statistic.” One final point, there is a reason why Founders separated centralized religion, and that was to save the nation from emotional, irrational, and divisiveness of religion sweeping politics. Fortunately for us, it is just another day in paradise and the devil of emotional chaos and confusion has been left at the doors of Eden…..


Marriage – according to “Webster’s Third New International Dictionary (unabridged)” that marriage is “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife” (1384). Furthermore, it also is the institution “whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining family.”

Gay – is defined by the Webster’s dictionary in respect to this paper –“ homosexuals” – relating to, or being a socially integrated group oriented toward and concerned with the welfare of homosexuals (941).

Homosexual ­– is an adjective describing a person who is or “of relating to or marked by sexual interest in the same sex as oneself; and, or relating to, or involving sexual intercourse with members of the same sex. (1085)"

Gay Marriage – is simply the state of being united with a person same sex in a special kind of social, and legal dependence, and possibly for founding and maintaining a family.


So what is the controversy regarding “Gay Marriages?” Could it be that if allowed, Americans might have to accept and acknowledge that gay and lesbians “perceived abnormal behavior” is no more different from a person of color? How can a “normal” uniformed citizenry deny the right of freedom of choice in the 21st century? How can the government? How can religion? The answer is that what is perceived as “normal” by American cultural standards is that one male and one female – heterosexual marriage – are “normal” and nothing outside of the “norm” will be accepted. However, this denial of freedom, of expression, and of choice, even to a “small segment of the people” is a denial to “all the people.” Thus, is the controversy. So, we as a free principled society ask, "Can we as Americans, as a people, look at 'ourselves' in the mirror and truly say that every law abiding American has 'true' freedom of choice?" The simple is, no.

Thesis Statement

Gay marriages should be allowed between two consenting adults, they should be afforded all the privileges that go with it, and the government should lead the way.

Government Opposition

Opposition (1)


Question – Why does the government oppose gay marriages? The simple answer – because its citizenry does. For instance, Charles T. Canady R-Fla., said “lawmakers have responsibility to draw a legal distinction between heterosexual marriages and unions between people of the same sex …What is at stake in this controversy? … Nothing less than our collective moral understanding … of the essential nature of family.” (Idelson) This attitude by the Florida representative gives insight as to where the perceptions of collective heads of our government are regarding gay marriage. Thus, if gay marriages are allowed then the foundation of American society, the family, will be pillaged bringing further decay to an already rotting society. However, there are other reasons behind the government’s opposition: the United States Constitution. Article IV of the United States constitution states that every state must recognize and give with “Full Faith and Credit” to the “public acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings” of other states (Human Events). In other words, if one state were to accept the covenant of same sex marriages then the other 49 states would have to honor the contract of the couple. Thus, the issuing state would be imposing its will on a citizenry that has not voted up or down on whether to recognize gay marriages.

Such a case happened in 1996. A lesbian couple, wanting to have their marriage allowed, went to the Hawaiian Supreme Court, only to have it dropped later in 1999 because of a decisive public referendum. Thus, the public’s outcry for banning gay marriages in 1999 cannot be interpreted as reasoned or thought through but is a result of a core emotional reaction to what it perceives as “normal” by the American public. Moreover, back in 1996 when the possibility of gay marriages might have been formally recognized as legitimate, the United States House of Representatives in July passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Soon after, the United States Senate joined the House on September 10, 1996 in passing DOMA. Moreover, President Clinton signed it into law to help bolster his re-election chances. What is DOMA?

The purpose of DOMA is to amend Article IV, Section 1 of the US Constitution along with Chapter 1 of Title of the US code by adding a new section. The former, Article IV, Section 1 gives the Congress the right to “prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.” Therefore, the US Congress can interpret what is “Full Faith and Credit” for the states. The latter, Chapter 1, Section 7 is an additional segment to the chapter that states, “ … the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” Furthermore, “the word ‘spouse’ refers to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife (Human Events).” Therefore, the United States Congress chose to reflect an anxious American public outcry that gay marriages not be allowed in order to preserve the “American family.”

Family Opposition

Opposition (2)

Some would say that the degradation of the family began soon after the French Revolution. Far fetched? In the West, marriage was the Domain of the Roman Catholic Church until the Reformation, and nothing more than a licensed concubinage. According to Kevin Grace (15-16) in his article, “Why Save the Nuclear Family?” the late sociologist Christopher Lasch stated that by the end of the 19th century marriage and family was viewed by American newspapers and magazines as being in crisis. Their view was that with the “rising rate of divorce, the falling birthrate with ‘better sort of people’, the changing role of women, and the ‘so called revolution in morals’” the traditional family could no longer exist with the ever-changing world of modernization. As an example of this, the divorce rate increased fifteen-fold between 1870 and 1920. Nearly one out of seven marriages ended in divorce and with no sign of reversing itself. How does this data support the opposition? Simple, the “revolution” in morals has deconstructed the family sense of community, of “kinship network” (15). With the loss of the family unit, the closeness of the grandparents and cousins for all practical purposes are non-existent, because of the impracticability of modern life. Thus same sex marriages, if allowed, then would virtually emasculate traditional marriage altogether. Moreover, this is the fear of the “conservative” right as well as of the majority of the American public who views homosexuality as “outside” of normal behavior.

However, for the “conservative right” it goes deeper than the loss of normalcy and affects Americans spiritually. Religious leaders have used the events of September 11 to show America’s lack of morals, and that it has contributed to the destruction of the American family. Thereby, if Americans decide to cave into the “gay rights movement” by allowing same-sex marriages, God would then condemn America forever.

Opposition (3)

The Religious Perspective

In the opinion of Dennis Prager, from the Public Interest, in his article "Homosexuality, The Bible, and US – A Jewish Perspective.” Is that “It is impossible for Judaism to make peace with homosexuality, because homosexuality denies most fundamental values … denies life … it denies God … (and) denies (what) the Bible prescribes for all mankind – the family.” He discusses the spiritual and religious reasoning for denying gay marriages.

In fact, he states the allowance of gay marriages would be immoral and that “even if homosexuals have ‘no choice’ we offer our compassion.” However, this does not extend to giving up the “heterosexual marital ideals.” The roles of men and women have been clearly defined as such; it is one of the primary reasons why same sex marriages should not be allowed. Prager points out, that “men need women” and vice versa – stating that “when God solved man’s aloneness by creating one other person, a woman – not a man, not a few women, not a community of men and women.” Meaning that man’s sole purpose, in regards to loneliness, is not found in the function of a community or the same sex, but his completion of being with one woman.

Thus, when men and women marry they become fully human (Prager). Therefore, when God created man, he created both male and female. He created “them” not “you guys” or “you gals.” Therefore, marriage is not only a tribute to God, but to the community as a whole. In addition, when a man gets married to a female he is “choosing life,” meaning that he has chosen to procreate and establish a legacy. In the view of Judaism, homosexuality is death, because it fails to propel the human species forward without additional assistance (Prager).

Furthermore, the homosexual lifestyle for males breeds infidelity, which is more the rule than the exception. Although in the modern era, infidelity is one of the primary reasons for divorce among heterosexual couples. However, this is due to lack of modern morality more than a perceived abnormality. So, what is at stake for religion if tolerance and the resulting laws for gay marriages are allowed? Simply, the foundation of ideals set forth by Judeo-Christian civilization is at stake. In other words, the “sexual behavior (of a society) plays a role in either building or eroding a civilization (Prager).” That behavior is a key to the survival of a civilization.

Ideal Government

Support (1)

The United States is founded on the ideals of individualism, liberty, and freedom. It is the right of every American to pursue happiness. The idea of not allowing a group of people to pursue their “ultimate happiness” is contrary to the establishment of this country. To deny the rights of marriage, simply because of the antiquated notion of what marriage should look like is discriminatory at the least and invidious at the worse. M.D. A. Freeman states that “Overcoming prejudice – which remains at the root of most opposition – will be difficult… If we believe in autonomy … and believe that the institution of marriage is valuable … it is difficult to justify depriving homosexuals and lesbians of this treasured form of human association.” Moreover, to allow murderers, rapists, and those with communicable disease such as HIV-infection or those who suffer from AIDS as well as transvestites or transsexuals to marry, as long as one was born the opposite sex, is inconsistent. The view of the government should be that marriage is the right of every citizen no matter the politics or sexual behavior (Freeman 1-17).

Furthermore, the government should be encouraging gay marriages because its what is good not only for the person, but also good for a community of people. To limit a people by restricting their happiness is intrinsically wrong. According to Freeman, in 1967 when the “state of Virginia was challenged by Loving, it could have argued that the incidents of marriage were designed with same-race marriages in mind.” However, they did not. Why? Because they knew that they had crossed the line. Discrimination is discrimination no matter what forms it tries to disguise itself.

Therefore, the government should lead the people, and enforce the public laws that are currently on the books so that equal opportunity for all people is rightly represented no matter what their sexual orientation. As a group with equal protection under the law, they should be allowed to explore all the possibilities of institutional marriage including that of having a family.

Support (2)

Families Coming Out

What constitutes a family? According to Webster ‘s Third International Dictionary – it is a group of individuals living under one roof – a household; they may share the same ancestry, and have common religious and political views. Simply, family can be a group that shares a common goal from the parent on down to the child or whomever resides within the home.

The “gay-rights movement” sees the worry that most citizens may have regarding children being raised by adults that society considers abnormal. However, the advocates of gay marriage can argue that heterosexual homes fare no better. Some examples of this are the Jerry Springer Show, Ricki Lake, Jenny Jones reflected in the world of pop culture. For instance one Jenny Jones’ show “Teenagers Gone Wild”, discussing teenagers girls and their promiscuity defying their parents rules about school and household rules.

When it comes to family, Americans seem to want to band together on what they perceive a family and marriage is. Whatever the popular culture is reflecting about America, the gay-rights advocates are asking for a major cultural change. However, some states may concede to adopt a new type of institution referred to as a “civil union”; the state of Vermont is the first state to have civil unions (Sullivan). Although civil unions will have all the legal rights as an institutional marriage, many view this step, in the gay-rights movement, as a half measure. Moreover, although civil unions may recognize the partnerships of same-sex commitments, the perceptual view of it will not be same as marriage. Not quite condoning, nor condemning gay marriages. They concede that civil unions however are a step in the right direction. They question whether the public will afford them “all” the opportunities that marriage brings.

For instance – will a gays or lesbians be able to raise their own children how they want, have the right to adopt, take in foster children, or have the opportunity to be Big Brother/Sisters? The continual social stigma of raising a child that has two parents that are of the same-sex can be hard. However, more and more families are coming out of the shadows into the mainstream of public life. In an article in the Newsweek Lifestyle section, once the child has an opportunity to accept their differences from other families they are essentially no worse off than other “normal” families. Although social acceptance of “gay families” has a long way to go, the continual “outing” of families will most likely allow Americans more tolerance for the differences. This may eventually lead to the religious acceptance of gay marriages and same-sex families.

Religious Tolerance

There is a movement afoot, and the foundation seems to be coming from within the chapel itself – tolerance. In an article written by Chris Glasner, he writes a two-fold story; one is set in subtext regarding his homosexuality in the ministry, and the other is the direct message regarding his marriage to his life partner. He discusses back in 1996 how his “calling” and his “marriage” were under attack because of the legal hoopla in Hawaii. In 1996, three gay couples challenged the state of Hawaii regarding the same-sex marriage license status (Kunen). Glasner recalls how this is a cultural issue among heterosexuals and how they “scapegoated the lesbian and gay communities”. He recalls how is family and his biological families came under attack; and, the battle from within his own church regarding the dynamic of gay-marriage and families. The final resolution that was written showed the tolerance within his church and the church congregation. What this story shows is that religion is adaptable, and that doctrine is not always absolute.

However, the real battle for religious acceptance will most likely come in the form of secularism. In other words, the battle for acceptance must come in a form of a three-prong attack. First, the gay-rights movement must persuade legislators that being gay is not hazardous to the public wellness. Secondly, and this is most important, that the coveted institution of marriage will not be undermined. In fact, the institution itself may be better off with the stability of committed lesbians and gay-partners (Freeman). Thirdly, the underlining church and state laws regarding homosexuality sodomy must be separated if the culture of intolerance is to be broken (Clark). Why must the separation of Church and State be torn apart? Answer – because the continued entanglement of Church and State culture will foster the furtherance of intolerance. In addition, as long as the two are tied together the State cannot be swayed out of its long irrationality of tradition. Therefore, the “real harm being gay consists of being the victim of homophobia and heterosexism;” thus the denial to right of marriage (Freeman).

By the publics inculcating homosexuality, they can demoralize the gay-rights movement as a result of not allowing “them” into the fold of normal society. Why? Because those who would deny this inalienable right realize that gay and lesbian partnerships would have the same stabilizing factors as does the heterosexual partnerships with individuals and community. Moreover, the opposition feels that the civil advantages of marriage belong to strictly to the heterosexuals (Clark).

The enculturation of heterosexual marriage is so engrained that the “gay rights” movement must use the popular culture of America to find its acceptance. Therefore, only by exposing the American public to their message can they change the minds of the next generation.


The two sides have many reasons for what “they” believe is valid. For instance, the opposing religious view is that gay marriage is immoral, that it invites death to a civilization. On the other hand, the government is reflecting what the American public wants. Moreover, the opposing family view feels that the exclusivity of what makes up a family should be that of heterosexuals and sees nothing wrong denying its accessibility to “marriage.” While the proponents of gay marriages feel that social acceptance is dependent upon how the government leads it people, and will be the only way that Americans will be more tolerant of “their” lifestyle. Moreover, the proponents of gay-families feel that with their “coming out” that the American culture must find a way to adapt to the differences in families. In addition, with movement within some religious circles towards homosexuals there may be eventual change on the idea of gay marriages.


The success of gay marriages and gay families are solely dependent on three factors: the government, the gay-rights educating the public and finally, the tolerance of religious leaders. The last two will take time and energy, but the first will take a concerted effort by the gay-rights movement to remind the government that “they” are also part of the “people.” To put it simply, two consenting adults should be allowed to marry no matter what their sexual orientation. After all, at least from a human perspective, “they” – gays and lesbians – are Americans too; and, “they” have a right to the freedom of choice and expression as well.

Works Cited

Clark, Thomas W. “Secularism and sexuality. The case for gay equality” Humanist 54.3 (May/June 94): EBSCO HOST Research Database. 26 Feb. 2003.

Freeman, M. D. A. “Not Such A Queer Idea: Is There a Case for Same-Sex Marriages?” Journal of Applied Philosophy 16.1 (1999): 26 Feb 2003.

Glaser, Chris “Marriage As We See It” 128.12 (9/96) Newsweek: 26 Feb 2003.

Grace, Kevin Michael “Why Save the Nuclear Family?” The Report 2 Sept. (2002): 26 Feb 2003.

Kunen, James “Hawaiian Courtship” Time 128.27 (12/96): 26 Feb. 2003.,10987,985702,00.html

Idelson, Holly “Panel Okays Bill To Undercut Same-Sex Marriages” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report 54.24 (06/96): 26 Feb 2003.

“Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Imperils the family” Human Events 52.20 (5/96): 26 Feb.

Prager, Dennis “Homosexuality, The Bible, and US – A Jewish Perspective” 93.112: 26 Jun 2006

Sullivan, Andrew “State of the Union” New Republic 16.1 (1999): 26 Feb 2003.

A Journey of Nostalgia

June 8, 2006

Editor’s note: This is a reposting of a guest blog I did for Michiganrafter. I have been meaning to write about this experience for the last month. Rafter’s dislocated wing gave me an opportunity to do so.

Hey my name is gksden, and I am helping out while his Michiganrafter wing is being healed. So, I will be attempting to write this posting for him. I am a Colorado native, and I have a dirty little secret. Sssh, I don’t know how to ski. Ssssh, and I dont know how to rock climb, either. Please don’t tell anyone. I am your person who rarely goes camping, but that may be due to my experience as a youth, when I had an opportunity to attend a mountaineering school. I did enough of that for a lifetime. Oh, I loved it. Truly, I did, it was even spiritual. However, it is not my first recreational activity, I am a biker first, a hiker second, and a camper third—actually may be 5th or 6th. Nonetheless, there was a time, when I wanted to scale Mount Everest. Ah, the folly of youth. Observe as I recollect….

Sangre De Cristos Mountains


I have wanted to write about an experience about when I was younger; much younger for the last month. Recently, as I walked through my campus at school—Auraria—which is home to three colleges: Community College of Denver, University of Colorado at Denver, and Metropolitan State College of Denver, the spring weather had brought campus vendors on to the common area grounds selling their wares, opportunities, and adventures.

One such company sent me “Reelin’ in the Years” (Steely Dan) for nostalgia. The vendor name was Outward Bound Wilderness—but in my day—it was Colorado Outward Bound School (COBS), a slight distinction admittedly, but I had not seen, or heard of the school in nearly a generation of my lifetime after high school.

Nevertheless, my head was suddenly awashed with memories; the aroma of pine filled my nostrils, and flashes of green field pastures danced hauntingly behind my eyes, and a reverent smile grew on my face as I talked with youthful proprietors that attended the stand.

It was the summer of my seventeenth birthday, and four months earlier I had been enticed (or bewitched depending on one’s perspective) to go on a quest. I was encourage and inspired by my science teacher, whose name escapes me at this very moment (temporary brain damage, at least I think so). Anyhow, it was to be three weeks (or 21 days) of the most intensive packback trek through Sangre De Cristos Mountains in southern Colorado and I remembered it all as I chatted somewhat enthusiastically Jason Stout of my past youthful glory days.


I had been a young struggling urban youth, lost in my world of  science fiction television and books. I was an awkward teenager trying to find my way to balance, for my intelligence and arrogance, yet I knew everything and nothing all at once.

I remember that I was running late to class one day as the school bell of my high school Alma matter, George Washington, had just rung, as usual I was running behind. I entered the biology classroom with all the stealth of a water buffalo. I had tripped over my own two feet, and went sprawling with my books and supplies across the floor. Classroom snickers could be heard throughout room.

My teacher look at me, he was not upset, with amusement. I hurriedly picked up after myself, when I noticed the guest inside the classroom. A stranger sat patiently in one of the corners—a young woman. She was in her late twenties, red wavy hair, slender body, and forest green eyes that seem to look through me. She was wearing a red plaid flannel shirt underneath it a white t-shirt, and 501 blue jeans. My teacher encouraged me with his eyes to take my seat – so I did. She was a guest speaker for a company called Outward Bound where they provided wilderness training for students, tourists, and companies that had teamwork issues by leading groups of people on rafting, hiking, and mountaineering trips. This woman glowed like a prophet, her fervor nature was intoxicating.

She was hypnotic and I was mesmerized. Her voice was soothing as she spoke like honey going down one’s throat with a hot cup of tea when sick. Her dark green penetrating eyes glistened like deep pools of water, twinkling with excitement as she showed slides of wonderful mountain vistas, of rivers, and of her scaling steep mountainsides with effortless abandon. I thought to myself, “I could do this!” My heart pounded and began to ascertain the possibilities of adventure, and I was not just thinking of the mountainous terrain.

After all, of course, fantasies of a young man’s fancy ensued. I imagined the conquering the massive 14,000-foot peaks, traveling down the most difficult rapids, and scaling the most difficult cliffs. I would conquer nature, and I would be nature’s king. I would be king of the mountains! It is peculiar how life’s aspirations turn out.

(Green Mountains) Sangre De Cristos Mountains

My biology teacher informed the class that if one went on such a trip they could get extra course credit and then I heard how much. My heart sank. I might as well have bought a new-used car for the amount of money they were charging, but I was determined. I was going to conquer nature not only for me, but I was going accomplish my life’s destiny. So, I gathered up the brochure materials and my books and took it home to my mother.

I spent the better part of a week trying to convince her, a single parent of three, to let me go; certainly a difficult task. I bribed my sisters, and I had to promise to procure a job to pay my mom back. However, when everything was said and done, I was still $350 dollars short. The Monday morning, before the deadline for payment and a week before the deadline, I informed my teacher of my predicament. He suggested that I apply for a scholarship for the rest of it.

(Lake Isabel, Wet Mountains part of the Sangre De Cristos)


One of the universal truths’ is that what effort you put out is exactly what you get back. So I applied for the scholarship and got lucky and received exactly the $350 (I have suspicion that my teacher may have sponsored me indirectly, but really will never know. If he did—thank you).

Now, all I needed was to buy clothes, backpack, and boots. It took all summer to acquire the items I needed, and I took this as sign of my first conquest. My journey of discovery began in the early part of August, the rainy season, when thunder- storms rolled in and out of the Colorado Mountains. The buses came and picked us up, we, the grand adventurers, from the designated spot. The pilgrimage to the southern red mountains was long and arduous. At one point, I saw the Sand Dunes of Colorado far in the distance; the camel white dunes were smooth, crystalline; a virtual desert of silk as the Dunes rose like waves gently caressing the sides of the hills. It was late when we arrived at the base camp….


Cleveland and Tijeras Peaks, Music and Marble Mountains rising beyond the dunes. That’s Challenger Point, Kit Carson Peak and Columbia Point rising on the left. (Source National Park Service).


It was dark, the night enveloped the mountains and the trees, and it was disturbing. The city lights of Denver were a distant memory. However, my confidence did not waiver as the buses pulled into the staging area, but the journey was just beginning. A hike of ten miles to the first campsite was to greet the start of the expedition. We would break up into groups, and begin our sojourn for the night. We walked in silence as the ground grinded underneath our steps. After about an hour it began to rain, and my first lesson came upon me, my boots began soaking the rain that fell upon them.

My waterproofing had failed. My boots were soaked, my socks, my feet, and looked like prunes when I had removed them for the night. The next thirteen of the twenty-one days it would rain. I scaled various mountain-sides some successfully, and some not with my group. The one’s we failed to conquer would rot at my gut; nevertheless, I saw nature in its wonderment. I saw hawks using it wings to ride thermals of air for what seemed like forever, and then suddenly dive to catch its meal for the day. I was envious. It was one more reminder of the enormity of nature and how the beauty of flight seemed graceful.

One day our journey came to a screeching halt. We sat in our tents as we waited for the storm to subside before hiking the next mountain range. It never did, and our patience was wearing thin. We were losing time. We each had a mission to accomplish that of fasting and solo meditation. For me this was the test I would best myself against nature. The instructors would check on us daily to make sure we drank enough water, however before any that happen, the rain and fog kept us socked in at our campsite. So, we waited.

(A winter moment from Europe; image RobT)

Finally, unable to wait any longer, we gathered our saturated belongings and proceeded up the side of the mountain. Each step was a squish, a deliberate plod, and a squirt. The red mud clay of the mountain slipped underneath my boots.

The mud had stacked on like layers on the bottom of my shoes, as the group reached the vista that lay ahead of us changed from a doom and gloom London rain to the rolling hills of green Ireland. I stood there; we all stood there, in amazement of the sudden change of fortune and weather…..

California Peak in San Luis Valley (Sangre De Cristos Mountains)

It had been three days and my group leader had returned for me to tell me my solo was done. The time of my meditation and reflection had changed me. Nature had let me feel the loneliness and the solitude. I learned that they were completely different animals. A person could be alone in crowd of people, while solitude was the individual ability to find peace within oneself and be okay alone. I felt alone, I had all my life, even though I had two sisters and a mother and my father a Rolling Stone type (Sly & family Stone) and no where to be found. Nature had shown me my loneliness……

Images provided and the following text is provided by BLM:

“Zapata Falls is located 4 miles east of Colorado Highway 150, just south of the entrance to Great Sand Dunes National Park. The gravel road going in is excellent for a BLM site. From the parking area it is about a 1/2 mile walk uphill to the falls. As you are well above the San Luis Valley floor and looking over the sand dunes, the views are excellent.

Two million years ago glacial activities were sculpting the Sangre de Cristos. The waterfall flows through a rock dike left by a retreating glacier. As the glacier melted away, a large lake of melt water built up behind the dike. Eventually, the water found a weak spot in the dike and began working and eroding its’ way through.

The photo on the left above was taken at the entrance to the rock gorge carved by the water. The photo on the right was taken inside the gorge. To get there I walked across the frozen and flowing streambed into the gorge. The gorge is open up above but you can’t always see the sky. And it was probably 30 degrees colder in the gorge with a stiff breeze blowing downstream (there was almost no wind outside the gorge).” (Source BLM)

It had been a tough three weeks and the excursion was about over when I decided to walk off by myself. I found a large saucer shaped boulder large enough to house a house a small family. Okay, maybe a small midgets’ family, but a rather large boulder, which I climbed, and laid down upon it in the evening air.

The night sky was filled with stars as the sounds of the woods reached a crescendo when I felt the change within my lungs. I lay there perfectly still not wanting to be disturbed by the atmosphere of the night. My body started to tingle like a thousands of ants had just crawled over my skin. First, I felt the loss of my arms, neck, legs, and then my feet. I could not move them. I tried desperately.

I was suddenly frightened. I did not know what to do, but the more I struggled, the more the sensation grew. Finally, I wrestled myself to my knees, then to my feet. I stood up and began to walk away when I pivoted on my heels to look at the boulder—I saw myself on the great rock with my eyes wide open.

The moon rose, and it was big as life. I stretched out my arm see if I could touch it, and suddenly I was there. The moon was barren, lifeless and I saw far above the horizon the Earth. I pinched myself. It seemed real enough, and suddenly the Earth grew fainter, and fainter, and I was floating towards a light.


Image from flick’r public domain

It was calming, benevolent, and soothing to my soul. Faster and faster the light grew more intense and just when I felt my eyes might burn away, I stood in a luscious forest green field. A melodic orchestrations washed over me. It was of nature. The sounds of it encompassed me, reminding me that this was mine, ours, and life was meant to be lived.

As it had quickly as it formed, the journey home reversed. The green field faded, darkness returned, and the Moon and the Earth grew exponentially. I now stood over my body, seeing it really for the first time. I reached out touch my arm and with that the words breathlessly, “What the hell?” spewed out from my lips.

Nature had taught her final lesson to me and that, she was the timekeeper—and the certainty of death was not to be feared.

When my trip had ended, I had returned home to understand that life’s isolation was up to me, and that I could be comfortable within my own skin—no matter what the color…

(So, it ends with a pleasant sunset; not in Colorado, but for the spirit. Image by Jen C.)

Jason Stout and I exchanged pleasantries as I grabbed his business card as I vowed to him and myself that I would help in anyway that I could bring back my passage from childhood. Ah, memory lane, that day was good, I walked to my next class, and my sentimental refrain reminded that after all, it is just another day in paradise. And so…. life goes on, while nature remains wondrous, mysterious, in all its beauty.







A Musical Interlude

June 3, 2006

Found at the stylings of Michael Buble.

Well, here I am again stressing to write a post. I have been doing alot of that lately. Politically, I am burning out. Socially, I feel isolated. Oh, I my friends are there for me, even those who are most dear to me. However, my nerves seem to be on edge, seemingly and constantly being scrapped like fingernails on a chalkboard. When this happens, I close my eyes and try to find the "music," inside me to restore balance. Earlier, I found a song on to dedicate to a friend's newest adventure and sent it to them as a message that the "new dawn, " "new day," and "new life" was nothing to fear.

image by Jen C.

Enjoy the reverie, and relish the new opportunities. The song is "Feeling Good" by Michael Buble found at……

The Absurdity of Fear

May 21, 2006

6,500,000,000 (rounded) World Population1,313,000,000 billion (rounded) China
1,089,000,000 billion (rounded) India
107,000,000 million (rounded) Mexico
298,000,000 million (rounded) USA
456,000,000 million (rounded) EU
3,263,000,000 billion (rounded)


The Heritage Foundation


The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S. 2611) would be the most dramatic change in immigration law in 80 years, allowing an estimated 103 million persons to legally immigrate to the US over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current population of the United States.

According to The Heritage Foundation, by the end of 20 years, the senate bill, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S. 2611), could possibly allow an “estimated 103 million persons to immigrate over the next 20 years—fully one-third of the current US population.” In other words, on the average, averaged per year, 5 million legal immigrants would be crashing through gates, in this case, borders of America.

These numbers are astounding; even frightening; until one realizes their absurdity. The Heritage Foundation report by Robert Rector boldly titled, “Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 million New Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years” is nothing more than tilted political spin, filled with supposition, extending the worse case scenarios, and playing on the fears of Americans.

Are these numbers possible? Yes. Are they likely? Hmmm? No. If one is to believe these numbers, the extent that will result, the United States is not only in for a major culture change, but an economy so robust that it will support exponential arrival of guest workers.

On the other hand, this could be considered an argument for doing nothing at all, except for a few adjustments: enforcement of current law, securing the borders, building a fence, prosecution of employers for hiring illegal/undocumented workers, and biometric employment identification cards.

This is what I mean, if the US Congress and Senate fail to resolve the issue and come to compromise on the new levels of legal immigrants, then, the next best step is the curtailing and prevention of illegal workers. Yes, this will only partially stem the tide of illegal aliens, and this measure would assert a linear increase of “immigrants” into the country. Instead of an exponential increase of 103 million, another 20 million immigrants possibly, probably, but not likely, would filter unaccounted for into the country.

However, there is a problem with doing nothing; in that, this solution may be considered most risky. The public perception of ineptness my result in the voting out public officials seen as incompetent, self-serving, a willingness to compromise national security, and abetting lawlessness of illegal/undocumented immigrant workers.

Nonetheless, The Heritage Foundation spin is a disservice to the debate and plays on the public fear. For instance, upon reading the Web Memo, in the fourth paragraph:


“The figure of 103 million immigrants is a reasonable estimate of the actual immigration inflow under the new bill and not the maximum number that would be legally permitted to enter. The maximum number that could legally enter would be almost 200 million over twenty years—over 180 million more legal immigrants than current law permits” [my emphasis in the bold].

Hmmm? In that above quote, there is a lot of speculation. Let’s break it down, shall we? What is missing? What is the agenda? The answer is obvious; yes—but why the distortion of the facts? I will concede the possibility, even the probability, but the likelihood is not. This scenario assumes that everything remains static, and it also assumes the worse. It makes conclusions that play on the public’s unwillingness to investigate their case because they present it in such a reasonable fashion. It plays to the public’s desire of wanting to KISS it (keeping it simple and stupid).

In so being that, in the current atmosphere, the debate, which has been around Mexican Nationals and the Mexico border makes it easier to justify to scream at political leaders. The enemy, of course, is all the Mexican Nationals, who are subverting our culture, and our way of life; and, their refusal to learn English and adapt to American “values and belief.” Right? It is an invasion, after all, “just try to stop it!” (Peter Boyles, KHOW 630 AM Denver Colorado).

In part the validity of securing the borders rings true and is necessary. It is the how that needs to be worked out. What is missing from the statement is that there is only 107,000,000 Mexican Nationals (rounded) in the current population of Mexico. Unless “they” are Tribbles, the likelihood of Mexico’s population doubling is not probable, think about it.

The headlining figures imply that a nation-state will nearly depopulate itself, in the next 20 years, in order to have the citizenry come to the American Dream. And, who could fault “them” for that? After all, if they just do it legally then there is no problem, right? Except, if there is a law that lets “them” in anyway, right? This is what Senate bill 2611 supposedly does according to The Heritage Foundation.

image by

I am being too repetitive yet? Good! The preaching is just beginning. This particular posting is not neutral! Both the left and right extremes have contributed to the vileness I feel for them. And, those in the middle trying to bring rationality have failed miserably. The issue has been how does America adapt “to the War on Terror” and continue to be a player in the global market place into not only the 21st Century but beyond?

First step is to get our collective heads out of the sand (or other dark anatomically places), and start paying attention to the world around us.

Let’s continue the lesson of critical thinking, then. "Watch for the code," (according to Peter Boyles, the "Left" and those who support immigrants, legal or otherwise have a "code", watch for the "code" of the "Right" and the way it is used, its the same frakin one!). The Heritage Foundation (THF) would have you believe that somehow America’s population will be overran with foreigners—the “them.”

In that, on the heels of major protests and demonstrations across the country: Los Angeles 400,000; Chicago over 300,000; and, Denver 75,000 of recent weeks with Hispanics and other ethnicities (US born, legal residents, and illegal immigrants) marched in the streets. This was a daunting vision to see, and realization like that another Hallmark day once again staggered our vision and that, we are not paying attention once aain, except this time it is right under our own noses.

So, now there is an enemy within, and it is us. And, the enemy outside, the terrorist (some say Islam itself) continues to taunts our openness as a nation and our way of life. Even, our neighbors’ has shown disdain by disrespecting us, by dumping their less than desirables by not creating viable life for their citizens. Our leaders have betrayed their citizens by making “behind the closed doors” deals with that enemy.

For instance, as the new legislation defines immigration status according to THF are as follows:

Immigration Status
To understand the provisions of CIRA, largely based on a compromise by Senators Chuck Hagel (R–Nebraska) and Mel Martinez (R–Florida), it is useful to distinguish between the three legal statuses that a legal immigrant might hold:

Temporary Status: Persons in this category enter the U.S. temporarily and are required to leave after a period of time. Near-Permanent, Convertible Status: Persons in this category enter the U.S. and are given the opportunity to “adjust” or convert to legal permanent residence after a few years.

Legal Permanent Residence (LPR): Persons in this category have the right to remain in the United States for their entire lives. After five years, they have the right to naturalize and become citizens. As naturalized citizens, they have the constitutional rights to vote and to receive any government benefits given to native-born citizens.

A key feature of CIRA is that most immigrants identified as “temporary” are, in fact,
given convertible status with a virtually unrestricted opportunity to become legal permanent residents and then citizens.”

Seems straight forward—yes? Here is the problem as spelled out later in the text is the inference that seemingly “all” legal immigrants would be their entire extended family to the US. Robert Rector points out:

“…Both CIRA and existing immigration law is that immigrants in convertible or LPR status have the right to bring spouses and minor children into the country. Spouses and dependent children will be granted permanent residence along with the primary immigrant and may also become citizens. In addition, after naturalizing, an immigrant has the right to bring his parents into the U.S. as permanent residents with the opportunity for citizenship. There are no numeric limits on the number of spouses, dependent children, and parents of naturalized citizens that may be brought into the country. Additionally, the siblings and adult children (along with their families) of naturalized citizens and the adult children (and their families) of legal permanent residents are given preference in future admission but are subject to numeric caps.”

image by

Okay. So, the worker wants to be with his wife and kids. Gee, how dare they want to be with their family! Sarcasm aside, what is the issue?

It is the probability of sharing the power with legal immigrants seems disconcerting (They are "the others", after all). Rector points to the fact that the “‘temporary guest worker’ H-2C program” is nothing more than a way to become permanent citizens (by the way, once you become a citizen, you are no longer an “other”, but an US). Certainly, this is a mere shadow of the represented truth, but that assumes that everything remains static over the twenty years; and, that US Congress and Senate do not adjust the law accordingly.

Another interesting element missing from this report is that these legal residents will be paying federal, state, city and local taxes and contributing to the social security fund, and contributing to the consumer economy as well as the “melting pot” of American culture. Unless the legal immigrant is some how they are not worthy?

And, this is where the arguments of stratified classes and racism begins for the Left. Which is another long topic in itself, but let me remind the Left of this, an overplayed card becomes ineffective and trite when later a valid comes along. Admittedly, there is an element of truth to their fanaticism. But the idolization of the illegal / undocumented workers is not full faith based argument either. The flaunting of immigration laws has justifiably upset the citizen. And, with the numbers of crossing the borders, at least from a Mexican Nationals perspective, are responsible for their own demise in their nation as well. And, be that as it may, the complicity of American business, politicians, and the citizenry (for failing to pay attention) are partially responsible for our current “immigration issue.”

Nonetheless, when Rector lays out the worse case scenario (through the eight channels of legal and proposed CIRA channels) ad nauseam, he assumes that the border is not secured through implication when he states:

“All of the immigration discussed to this point would be legal immigration. If illegal immigration continued after enactment of S.2611, the inflow of immigrants would be even greater. Although illegal immigration is considered a major problem, the proposed legal immigration under CIRA would dwarf it numerically. The net inflow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. population is around 700,000 per year.[16] Legal immigration under CIRA would exceed five million per year, seven times the rate of the current illegal immigration flow. Annual legal and illegal immigration together now equals about 1.7 million; future legal immigration alone under CIRA would be three times this amount.”

In other words, failing to pass the bill would be a greater service. Read the code. The key to his alarmist critique is the CIRA bill allowance of exponentially increased guest workers. Worse case, in his view, at the end of twenty years legal guest workers needed would be approximately 12 million per year (based on initial startup of 325,000 and up to 65,000 (20%) if not enough workers were supplied, and again up to the maximum 20% per year thereafter). This is an extraordinary assumption and again leaves out the economic implication of these workers and the citizenry at hand. This means that the economy at the end of 20 years has the vitality to generate one million jobs per month.

What is more likely though this is an indication that, the 12 millions guest workers (who all will pay taxes) will be needed to make up the loss of American workers due to retirement of the Baby Boomers, and the shortfall of workers in various other industries and not just low income service end-stopper careers, and the probability, of course, all these jobs are outsourced anyway. And, we will not have to worry about the immigrants legal or otherwise.

Another possibility, the immigration comes from not only Mexico, the implication that all or most of the immigration will come from Mexico is inane, but from China and India which are the only countries capable enough to send that many workers based, comfortably, on their current population bases.

At any rate, my suggestion to you all is to read the web memo by Robert Rector closely, not just once but several times. The inferences of what could, might, ifs, up top, maximums of what “would” is self-serving for The Heritage Foundation and adds fuel to pyre of xenophobia and extremism. Vent over! After all, it is just another day in paradise….

Note—A newly added amendment by Senator Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico modifies the number of “guest workers and family” downward; interesting. This is following attachment to THF site by Robert Rector:

“(Update: On Tuesday, May 16, the Senate passed Sen. Jeff Bingaman's (D-NM) amendment to S. 2611 that significantly reduced the number of legal immigrants who could enter under the bill's "guest worker" program. As a result of this change, our estimate of the number of legal immigrants who would enter the country or would gain legal status under S. 2611 falls from 103 million to around 66 million over the next 20 years.)”

And, Now for these messages….

April 28, 2006

image by Cypercelt

In my rent-a-space thumbnail, you will find Texas RV Travel:USAer Blog. You will find many wonderfu pictures, and travelogue of her adventures. As I perused her site, I was mesmerized. Curiously pondering the travel of the open in road in Texas, of all places. It reminded of the days, when I drove over the road professionally. I miss it. The sense of freedom and trials of the road were often rewarded with a kindness of strangers. Truckers and RVers are some of the most compassionate people I know. My heart panged as I read her webpage. So, please go visit- my rent-my-space with this week renter….and while you are there, visit her renter as well.

Woe! Heavy Dude

April 27, 2006

No one should think of themselves as a victim. To be honest, victims are made when the victims give in to some cruel act against them. Bad things happen, sometimes very bad. The trick is to not give in. Hope gives inner strength where reason fails. To rise above being victimized is justice. No matter how oppressed, beaten, subjugated, stand tall and say, "I am and I will continue to be." Let the joy of overcoming obstacles feed your soul. Grow strong knowing no matter what bad is thrown your way, you may bend, but you will not break.

Now, as to duty. Duty is self-inflicted. Reconnaissance that fact. Embrace the knowledge that you do it to yourself. Got it? Good. Now stop saying Duty is bad. It is no worse than eating a bowl of ice cream. Sure you may not like the extra weight, but come on it tastes sweet doesn't it? Oh yeah, hmmmmmm, other people are made happy because of duty. That smile on their face is reward enough.

What happens to those who do not appreciate your efforts? Well, you should not worry about it. In order to trust someone, everyone must first give their trust freely and without measure. Trust is not a one-way street. Distrust is an inbred beast. Those who violate trust should be forgiven. Forgiven?!? Yes, what a wretched creature betrays those who care enough to be open to betrayal. As I said, distrust is an inbred beast bedding down with its sibling betrayal. Together they poison their parent. After all, who can trust if that same person is willing to betray others' trust?

The mountain weight of duty may not be really one of duty, but perhaps a sign pointing to lack of trust.